The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

The Sensitive TISSUE of Circumcision?

I've heard the theory that the Jews did it in the desert, where there was insufficient water to maintain cleanliness. So did the Arabs find it necessary?

Also, mothers today don't want to clean their sons there.

But we have water today, and actual, factual science says its a wash. ;)
 
I beleive some are blowing this a little out of proportion. You can't compare male circumcision to Female Gender Mutilation - I assure you they are two very different things with very different levels of harm. And I think it's a little silly to ask "Why are these men all over the world dying from all these alleged lack of health benefits and additional exposure to these diseases." - any research on the subject shows that health benefits are minor, no one is saying that uncircumcised men are dying left and right.

I want to make sure that we aren't over thinking this too much. Risks and benefits are either rare or minor either way. If you are coming to this choice with a blank slate and no real preference either way, you may as well just flip a coin
 
It's a tough situation. It seems like the serious risks aren't as great as the serious benefits but it's all small numbers. The information is so unclear. Congratulations on your impending son. You still have some time to fret over this yet.
 
Loss Leader said:
I cannot make this more clear: the only properly-controlled studies on the effects of circumcision show that adult circumcision carries physical and psychological risks of sexual disfunction. The procedure, if done, must be done in infancy or you risk a much, much larger impact on your child.

The so-called "human rights" argument ignores this medical evidence.
Click to expand...
Your quote above the post was mistakenly attributed to olowkow. It was Capel Dodger's quote.
 
Last edited:
Vic Vega said:
That sounds so completely absurd that you may want to expound on it a little.
Click to expand...
Actually no, I will let my statements stand without any further discussion. If read carefully, you will see that it is an opinion, albeit a controversial one. It is not the type of topic I want to argue about.
 
SeanDamnit said:
I beleive some are blowing this a little out of proportion.
Click to expand...

Every time... every single time the topic comes up, someone comes out with that female genital mutilation, and pretends it has some bearing on male medical circumcision. Sad but true. To me, it is not only wrong-headed, but also it serves to trivialize female genital mutilation.
 
Loss Leader said:
I cannot make this more clear: the only properly-controlled studies on the effects of circumcision show that adult circumcision carries physical and psychological risks of sexual disfunction. The procedure, if done, must be done in infancy or you risk a much, much larger impact on your child.

The so-called "human rights" argument ignores this medical evidence.
Click to expand...

May I second this? It's all fine and fair to argue on ethical grounds that it's "the child's decision to make when he's an adult" but in practise, adult circumcision is a very bad idea and not an alternative option. If you are going to be circumcised, it should be as an infant.

In fact, I'd say that parents would be saving their child alot of pain and suffering by sparing them adult circumcision.

Besides the fact that it's major surgery by the time you're an adult, that it's much more costly, that the recovery is much longer and more painful, that you have memories and experiences of the pain, there's also the fact, um, well, I'll let the last paragraph of this article say it for me:

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/sleep_stiffy.shtml
 
You can actually take real pain meds as an adult. Babies just have to suck it up during the healing process.
 
I thought the real reason circumcision was invented was to make it less convenient for boys to masturbate. It's easier when you have a foreskin to roll, minimising friction, over the glans. Without the foreskin you need to rub the glans directly, causing friction and requiring lubrication.

Female circumcision (I'm referring to the trimming or removal of the clitoral hood, analogous to male circumcision, not the practice of female genital cutting or mutilation which removes the clitoral glans) is also performed in an attempt to reduce the incidence of masturbation, although it is much rarer than male circumcision.

Though much less common, other women opt to have the hood surgically trimmed or removed so as to permanently expose part or all of the clitoral head. Such a procedure is akin to male circumcision and is sometimes known as female circumcision, a term that is often confused with the practice of female genital cutting which usually removes extensive amounts of tissue, including the entire exposed part of the clitoris. Similar procedures were once rarely preformed in "civilized" countries such as the United States as well, to discourage masturbation, but by the 1960s this destructive practice was recognized as abusive and discontinued.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood#Modifications

Does anyone here know anyone who opted "to have the hood surgically trimmed or removed so as to permanently expose part or all of the clitoral head."?

Has anyone here had the procedure? Perhaps you could tell us of your experience.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
May I second this? It's all fine and fair to argue on ethical grounds that it's "the child's decision to make when he's an adult" but in practise, adult circumcision is a very bad idea and not an alternative option. If you are going to be circumcised, it should be as an infant.

In fact, I'd say that parents would be saving their child alot of pain and suffering by sparing them adult circumcision.

Besides the fact that it's major surgery by the time you're an adult, that it's much more costly, that the recovery is much longer and more painful, that you have memories and experiences of the pain, there's also the fact, um, well, I'll let the last paragraph of this article say it for me:

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/sleep_stiffy.shtml
Click to expand...

Sorry, but both you and Loss Leader make it sound as if it will have to be done sometime, and that is just not the case for the vast majority. It is true that where it is not done routinely then some will need circumcision for a good medical reason later in life: but those numbers are very small. We no longer routinely remove tonsils, which was once a very common procedure. It does seem a little strange to impose surgery for no pressing medical reason, unless you are doing so for religious or cultural reasons.
 
There's no medical reason to do one or the other anymore.

My feeling is, given a choice, why are we cutting up the human body anyway?
 
What "medical/prophylactic" reasons the old timey sheep chasers had for circumcisions, basically it is just demonstration more control of the population, showing them what the powers that be can make them do.
There is no reason on Anyone's green earth to continue barbarisms like this.
 
An important element in this type of discussions is the use of euphemism to avoid the reality of the procedure.

What is actually happening to healthy foreskin is genital mutilation for the personal gratification of the parents.

If only those who really want to do this would wait until their son is 40 (and possibly a 200lb wrestler) then ask him and get his informed consent rather than genitally mutilating a defenceless infant.
 
Fiona said:
Sorry, but both you and Loss Leader make it sound as if it will have to be done sometime, and that is just not the case for the vast majority. It is true that where it is not done routinely then some will need circumcision for a good medical reason later in life: but those numbers are very small. We no longer routinely remove tonsils, which was once a very common procedure. It does seem a little strange to impose surgery for no pressing medical reason, unless you are doing so for religious or cultural reasons.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it has to be done sometime- I'm saying that this idea of "let the child choose when he can make that decision for himself" or "the parents don't have the right to do it to a unconsenting infant" or "circumcision has to be a an adult choice" is bogus.

That, btw, is what you hear about every 2 seconds whenever the topic of circumcision is brought up but it's not viable in practise. Everyone is against infant circumcision because it involves an infant but everyone agrees that an adult's is fine but adult circumcision is not the alternative option everyone seems to think it is.

Which is funny cause I'd say you have a stronger case for making it illegal for an adult than an infant!
 
@EeneyMinneyMoe. I don't think I follow. The argument from choice surely arises naturally, if it is conceded that circumcision has no significant health or medical benefits for the patient? The fact that the procedure is more difficult and more dangerous in adulthood does not change that, does it?
 
Last edited:
Congratulations, Upchurch and Mrs. Upchurch. I guess we know who our next mod is. :)

I found this sentence from the Wiki link to be persuasive:

Available research indicates that newborn circumcisions are a significant source of pain during the procedure...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to intentionally cause my son pain. End of discussion for me.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
You misunderstand. I'm not saying it has to be done sometime- I'm saying that this idea of "let the child choose when he can make that decision for himself" or "the parents don't have the right to do it to a unconsenting infant" or "circumcision has to be a an adult choice" is bogus.

That, btw, is what you hear about every 2 seconds whenever the topic of circumcision is brought up but it's not viable in practise. Everyone is against infant circumcision because it involves an infant but everyone agrees that an adult's is fine but adult circumcision is not the alternative option everyone seems to think it is.

Which is funny cause I'd say you have a stronger case for making it illegal for an adult than an infant!
Click to expand...

I am afraid it is bogus to claim that adult informed circumcision is not viable in practice. The fundamental difference is that an adult can be properly informed of what the procedure entails and can take an informed decision on inflicting the associated pain on his own body for no good reason. A defenceless infant cannot.

The fact that mutilated children only cry for a short time as a defence for mutilating them is more than a little bizarre. A child will stop crying after being hurt for any number of reasons, including shock. If you poke a baby's eye out with a sharp stick it will probably stop crying due to shock and exhaustion and the eye will heal over - blind. That would however be rightly illegal - and the fact that it didn't cry for long would be no defence in a court of law.

As for the disease prevention argument - that argument could be applied to every tissue and organ in the human body yet strangely isn't.

PS Congratulations to Upchurch on his new and hopefully - perfectly formed - child.

May the road always rise to meet his feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom